Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Challenge for Anarchists

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 1:03:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Coercion from sources other than the state: Anarchists tend not to acknowledge the fact that coercion can come from other sources that are not the state. But once this premise is accepted, Anarchists are faced with a problem.

What if the state was necessary to maintain a net outcome of the least possible amount of coercion? The Anarchist wants to blurt out "but the state is coercion!" and "tax is coercive theft!"

One could argue that state coercion is actually the use of force in defense of every individual, every citizen. It takes force to stop force.

I pose this question to the Anarchist. What if the best method to maintain an environment of the least amount of coercion was through a Constitutional Republic rather than an Anarchy?

Big corporate power derived from collectivist democracy: Anarchists like to say corporations are nothing but voluntary exchange, they can infringe on no one. But sometimes they say "you vote with your dollar." Yes! Precisely. It's essentially a democratic force that votes a corporation into power and wealth. The individual didn't consent to the big corporation and their acquisition of resources, a large majority used their dollar to vote to give them that status.

Let's say a corporation was voted into power and had enough wealth to buy the Colorado River and a massive armed security force to prevent any individual from drinking water out of the river without paying the corporation for every sip. Sounds like coercion and that environment and acquisition of resources was not the will of the individual.

Governments with a 2nd Amendment have no monopoly on force: Anarchists like to claim that having a state means a governing body has the monopoly on force. False, not in America where we have the 2nd Amendment. There's 300,000,000 guns in the hands of the citizens. The Federal government is outnumbered, especially when as we see today, the state and local governments and sheriffs have sided with the people, not the Feds.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 1:12:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 1:03:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Coercion from sources other than the state: Anarchists tend not to acknowledge the fact that coercion can come from other sources that are not the state. But once this premise is accepted, Anarchists are faced with a problem.

What if the state was necessary to maintain a net outcome of the least possible amount of coercion? The Anarchist wants to blurt out "but the state is coercion!" and "tax is coercive theft!"
It isn't. Natural law and private agencies in a free market are more than capable of keeping the people free, all without coercion.
One could argue that state coercion is actually the use of force in defense of every individual, every citizen. It takes force to stop force.
Through something like taxes, the State is initiating force for "the greater good". It is not combating coercion. Why settle for "some" coercion?
I pose this question to the Anarchist. What if the best method to maintain an environment of the least amount of coercion was through a Constitutional Republic rather than an Anarchy?
Then I wouldn't be an anarchist.

Big corporate power derived from collectivist democracy: Anarchists like to say corporations are nothing but voluntary exchange, they can infringe on no one. But sometimes they say "you vote with your dollar." Yes! Precisely. It's essentially a democratic force that votes a corporation into power and wealth. The individual didn't consent to the big corporation and their acquisition of resources, a large majority used their dollar to vote to give them that status.

Let's say a corporation was voted into power and had enough wealth to buy the Colorado River and a massive armed security force to prevent any individual from drinking water out of the river without paying the corporation for every sip. Sounds like coercion and that environment and acquisition of resources was not the will of the individual.
You don't have to deal with that corporation. You can just not drink, and the corporation can't force you do to anything. You would be incredibly stupid to do that, but you could.

Governments with a 2nd Amendment have no monopoly on force: Anarchists like to claim that having a state means a governing body has the monopoly on force. False, not in America where we have the 2nd Amendment. There's 300,000,000 guns in the hands of the citizens. The Federal government is outnumbered, especially when as we see today, the state and local governments and sheriffs have sided with the people, not the Feds.

The state has a legal monopoly on force. When they do something wrong, most of the time no one bats an eye.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 1:22:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 1:03:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Coercion from sources other than the state: Anarchists tend not to acknowledge the fact that coercion can come from other sources that are not the state. But once this premise is accepted, Anarchists are faced with a problem.

Of course coercion exists outside of government- nobody in their right mind has ever denied this.

What if the state was necessary to maintain a net outcome of the least possible amount of coercion? The Anarchist wants to blurt out "but the state is coercion!" and "tax is coercive theft!"

What if aliens came tomorrow and invaded Earth? "What if" questions piss me off. They are just an excuse for an unsubstantiated hypothetical without a shred of evidence to back it up. Give me evidence to support your premise and I'll consider it.

One could argue that state coercion is actually the use of force in defense of every individual, every citizen. It takes force to stop force.

Doesn't make it legitimate.

I pose this question to the Anarchist. What if the best method to maintain an environment of the least amount of coercion was through a Constitutional Republic rather than an Anarchy?

See my above mini-rant on "What if" statements.

Big corporate power derived from collectivist democracy: Anarchists like to say corporations are nothing but voluntary exchange, they can infringe on no one. But sometimes they say "you vote with your dollar." Yes! Precisely. It's essentially a democratic force that votes a corporation into power and wealth. The individual didn't consent to the big corporation and their acquisition of resources, a large majority used their dollar to vote to give them that status.

Sounds like that's a problem with democracy- not anarchy.

Let's say a corporation was voted into power and had enough wealth to buy the Colorado River and a massive armed security force to prevent any individual from drinking water out of the river without paying the corporation for every sip. Sounds like coercion and that environment and acquisition of resources was not the will of the individual.

Sounds like that's a problem with democracy- not anarchy.

Governments with a 2nd Amendment have no monopoly on force: Anarchists like to claim that having a state means a governing body has the monopoly on force. False, not in America where we have the 2nd Amendment. There's 300,000,000 guns in the hands of the citizens. The Federal government is outnumbered, especially when as we see today, the state and local governments and sheriffs have sided with the people, not the Feds.

Non sequitur. Nobody is claiming that the State is the only entity that has force. Anarchists claim that the State has a monopoly on "legitimate" (used lightly) or legal force. An individual cannot threaten another individual with a gun to force them to pay their taxes or to do X and Y without approval by the State.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 1:33:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If, in an anarchist society, a corporation becomes a huge monopoly, then this is not the fault of anarchy. This is the fault of the individuals who purchased goods from the company, thus making it a monopoly. Your fundamental problem is with individual choice, not anarchy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 1:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you really think the 2nd amendment guarantees us anything against the power of the American government?

Hey, you got to keep your rifle! Good look using that against a drone.

If that's really what you want, the 2nd amendment should read that the government is not allowed to own more firepower than the people.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 1:22:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 1:03:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Coercion from sources other than the state: Anarchists tend not to acknowledge the fact that coercion can come from other sources that are not the state. But once this premise is accepted, Anarchists are faced with a problem.

Of course coercion exists outside of government- nobody in their right mind has ever denied this.

Then why single out the state when it uses force to protect your rights.

What if the state was necessary to maintain a net outcome of the least possible amount of coercion? The Anarchist wants to blurt out "but the state is coercion!" and "tax is coercive theft!"

What if aliens came tomorrow and invaded Earth? "What if" questions piss me off. They are just an excuse for an unsubstantiated hypothetical without a shred of evidence to back it up. Give me evidence to support your premise and I'll consider it.

It's a rhetorical "what if" you idiot. You people are the ones with the hypothetical "what ifs." What if I don't want roads, what if a business refuses to collect sales tax, what if what if is the basis of your ideology.

One could argue that state coercion is actually the use of force in defense of every individual, every citizen. It takes force to stop force.

Doesn't make it legitimate.

Depends on your understanding of "legitimate." Noam Chomsky said all authority is illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate. The Founding Fathers from the Enlightenment proved legitimacy.

I pose this question to the Anarchist. What if the best method to maintain an environment of the least amount of coercion was through a Constitutional Republic rather than an Anarchy?

See my above mini-rant on "What if" statements.

America in the first century of its existence, a Constitutional Republic.
Somalia in recent years, an Anarchist society.

America had less coercion than Somalia.

Big corporate power derived from collectivist democracy: Anarchists like to say corporations are nothing but voluntary exchange, they can infringe on no one. But sometimes they say "you vote with your dollar." Yes! Precisely. It's essentially a democratic force that votes a corporation into power and wealth. The individual didn't consent to the big corporation and their acquisition of resources, a large majority used their dollar to vote to give them that status.

Sounds like that's a problem with democracy- not anarchy.

That form of democracy is de facto part of Anacho-Capitalism. The consumer votes with their dollar.

Let's say a corporation was voted into power and had enough wealth to buy the Colorado River and a massive armed security force to prevent any individual from drinking water out of the river without paying the corporation for every sip. Sounds like coercion and that environment and acquisition of resources was not the will of the individual.

Sounds like that's a problem with democracy- not anarchy.

That is a likely scenario in Anarchy and a condition allowed to occur in Anarchy.

Governments with a 2nd Amendment have no monopoly on force: Anarchists like to claim that having a state means a governing body has the monopoly on force. False, not in America where we have the 2nd Amendment. There's 300,000,000 guns in the hands of the citizens. The Federal government is outnumbered, especially when as we see today, the state and local governments and sheriffs have sided with the people, not the Feds.

Non sequitur. Nobody is claiming that the State is the only entity that has force. Anarchists claim that the State has a monopoly on "legitimate" (used lightly) or legal force.

You pointed out your own contradiction. Anarchists claim the state has a monopoly on legitimate force yet admit it's not legitimate force, then it's no different than force from a private individual who has no legitimate authority over you.

The problem is, the force of the state is in service for you not against you. That's why police are called public servants. You pay for them to serve you. When you violate another person's rights, you lose your rights and police initiate force to protect the citizens.

An individual cannot threaten another individual with a gun to force them to pay their taxes or to do X and Y without approval by the State.

Yes they can. Except it's not called taxes because it's literal theft and benefits you none whatsoever.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 1:33:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If, in an anarchist society, a corporation becomes a huge monopoly, then this is not the fault of anarchy. This is the fault of the individuals who purchased goods from the company, thus making it a monopoly. Your fundamental problem is with individual choice, not anarchy.

A corporation cannot become a huge monopoly without aid from government or brute force.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:48:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 1:03:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
One could argue that state coercion is actually the use of force in defense of every individual. It takes force to stop force.

The vast majority of initiatory violence and murder occurs not in spite of law, but through enforcers of the law. Government has killed approximately 900,000,000 since the 2nd century BC, and 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone [http://www.hawaii.edu...] [http://www.hawaii.edu...]. The police have no obligation to protect you, whereas a rights enforcement agency has the fiduciary obligation to protect you, and the financial incentive to protect you better than competing firms. Is a defense agency more likely to protect you if it has the obligation and the incentive to protect you? Yes. Government police have no obligation and no incentive to protect you, because it is a coercive monopoly and as such faces no repercussions either legal or financial for failing to protect you.

I pose this question to the Anarchist. What if the best method to maintain an environment of the least amount of coercion was through a Constitutional Republic rather than an Anarchy?

Some anarchists would say that it doesn't matter, because it's an immoral institution like slavery. What if slavery produced cotton better than the free market? It wouldn't matter because slavery is still immoral. I'm more of a David Friedman/Bryan Caplan approach, where I support anarchy because it offers the best incentives for defending people, and producing the goods and services people desire.

Anarchists like to say corporations are nothing but voluntary exchange, they can infringe on no one.

Said no anarchist ever. Corporations are legal creations of the state, which engage in political entrepreneurship to gain legal and tax advantages over their competitors and new businesses.

But sometimes they say "you vote with your dollar." Yes! Precisely. It's essentially a democratic force that votes a corporation into power and wealth. The individual didn't consent to the big corporation and their acquisition of resources, a large majority used their dollar to vote to give them that status.

If you use corporation as a misnomer for big business... "Big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprises loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers." -Ludwig von Mises

Let's say a corporation was voted into power and had enough wealth to buy the Colorado River and a massive armed security force to prevent any individual from drinking water out of the river without paying the corporation for every sip. Sounds like coercion and that environment and acquisition of resources was not the will of the individual.

One of the least likely scenarios ever constructed by yourself.
1. Buying a 1,450 mile long river would be near impossible in a free market with the kind of competition that exists.
2. Competing firms would earn more profit if people disliked the company's ownership of the river, or if they raised their prices.
3. Other rivers exist, other springs exist, water desalination is becoming much cheaper. 4. The company would not be initiating coercion; they would be defending just property ownership.
5. People typically don't go to rivers to drink water, it is delivered to their houses and their stores from around the world.

Governments with a 2nd Amendment have no monopoly on the initiation force

Try getting in a fist fight. Try opening your own police force to compete against the state. Try forming your own sovereign nation in the middle of America. By definition and function, governments are a monopoly on the initiation of force.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Geo, whether the State is in my best interests, or whether it has any sort of net welfare benefit over anarchy is irrelevant- I don't care if the State was the best thing ever invented. The principle remains that a contract in which an entity monopolizes a particular good or services and then forces an individual to pay for that good or service under threat of violence is not a legitimate contract.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

And I don't see anarchism as a 'rich body of idea.' It's merely feel-good nonsense that ignores the basic nature of human beings. It purports to be 'pro freedom,' but in reality, its 'pro brute force so long as it's not called government.'
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?

I don't? I'm an objectivist.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:59:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?

I don't? I'm an objectivist.

Rand wasn't an anarchist.

How do you then fund your government?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:59:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?

I don't? I'm an objectivist.

Rand wasn't an anarchist.

How do you then fund your government?

Voluntary contribution. It doesn't take much to fund my ideal government, like maybe 1-5% of GDP depending on if self-defence from foreign nations is necessary.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:04:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:02:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:59:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?

I don't? I'm an objectivist.

Rand wasn't an anarchist.

How do you then fund your government?

Voluntary contribution. It doesn't take much to fund my ideal government, like maybe 1-5% of GDP depending on if self-defence from foreign nations is necessary.

Free rider problem?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:09:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:04:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:02:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:59:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:58:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:57:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:29 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:48:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I fail to see how anarchism provides any more freedom to individuals than a libertarian society, besides the freedom to take away other's freedoms (which is inconsistent). Anarchism is an absurd notion that is not worth anyone's time.

The most basic principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which when followed results in anarchy. This is due to the fact that governments, by their very nature, are monopolies on the initiation of force. They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will.

Do you have an explanation for the bolded statement, or is capriciously dismissing a rich body of ideas good enough for you?

"They get income from extortion or by coercing people into accepting a fiat currency that they can inflate at will."

Not necessarily! The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

Then how do you justify taxation?

I don't? I'm an objectivist.

Rand wasn't an anarchist.

How do you then fund your government?

Voluntary contribution. It doesn't take much to fund my ideal government, like maybe 1-5% of GDP depending on if self-defence from foreign nations is necessary.

Free rider problem?

A proper government is not expensive.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:55:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The government I support is one that initiates force on individuals who initiative force on others who weren't initiating force (self-defence).

That's called defensive force, which, as I've demonstrated, is poorly provided by government.

And I don't see anarchism as a 'rich body of idea.' It's merely feel-good nonsense that ignores the basic nature of human beings. It purports to be 'pro freedom,' but in reality, its 'pro brute force so long as it's not called government.'

This betrays a massive ignorance on your part. It's okay to be ignorant about the subject, but to voice a vociferous opinion about a subject one is ignorant of isn't so forgivable.

The vast majority of initiatory violence and murder occurs not in spite of law, but through enforcers of the law. Government has killed approximately 900,000,000 since the 2nd century BC, and 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone. The police have no obligation to protect you, whereas a rights enforcement agency has the fiduciary obligation to protect you, and the financial incentive to protect you better than competing firms. Is a defense agency more likely to protect you if it has the obligation and the incentive to protect you? Yes. Government police have no obligation and no incentive to protect you, because it is a coercive monopoly and as such faces no repercussions either legal or financial for failing to protect you. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense?

Feel free to explore any of the videos or links I post. Watch the first 1/3 of the Machinery of Freedom.
[http://www.ozarkia.net...] [http://mises.org...]
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The vast majority of initiatory violence and murder occurs not in spite of law, but through enforcers of the law. Government has killed approximately 900,000,000 since the 2nd century BC, and 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone. The police have no obligation to protect you, whereas a rights enforcement agency has the fiduciary obligation to protect you, and the financial incentive to protect you better than competing firms. Is a defense agency more likely to protect you if it has the obligation and the incentive to protect you? Yes. Government police have no obligation and no incentive to protect you, because it is a coercive monopoly and as such faces no repercussions either legal or financial for failing to protect you. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense?"

You cannot equate all governments as equals. It is false to say that something called the 'government' must be bad because there have been bad governments. That's no different than saying Billy Bob is bad because Hitler was bad and also a human. Moreover, the government in my eyes would purely be organizational. If the government is funded by voluntary contribution, there can be no problems that a private firm would also have. The only difference is that the government must protect everyone's freedoms, which is an unalienable right.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 7:12:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:42:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the government is funded by voluntary contribution

Then it ceases to be a government. If it is voluntary, it becomes like any other private firm: competing for customers by providing better products/services at lower prices. Businesses are funded through voluntary contribution, not governments. At the point at which a "government" ceases to use extortion or other forms of coercion to get revenue, it ceases to be government.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 7:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 7:12:26 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:42:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the government is funded by voluntary contribution

Then it ceases to be a government. If it is voluntary, it becomes like any other private firm: competing for customers by providing better products/services at lower prices. Businesses are funded through voluntary contribution, not governments. At the point at which a "government" ceases to use extortion or other forms of coercion to get revenue, it ceases to be government.

No, it would not cease to be government simply because it's privately funded. The government would not be like a private firm because it could legally initiate force on another human being, and would make no distinction between people who fund the government or don't.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 8:20:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There will always be coercion, both from the government and from private entities. To believe otherwise is naive. This is WHY we have the right to bear arms, so nobody can push people around without being pushed back.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 8:20:07 PM, APB wrote:
There will always be coercion, both from the government and from private entities. To believe otherwise is naive. This is WHY we have the right to bear arms, so nobody can push people around without being pushed back.

Exactly.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:01:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
dylancatlow, there is literally no difference between anarcho-capitalism and the notion of user-funded government.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:01:05 PM, Korashk wrote:
dylancatlow, there is literally no difference between anarcho-capitalism and the notion of user-funded government.

User-fee funded*
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:01:05 PM, Korashk wrote:
dylancatlow, there is literally no difference between anarcho-capitalism and the notion of user-funded government.

False. The government in my ideal society would protect everyone's rights, not just those financially subscribed to it. Big difference.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:07:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:03:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:01:05 PM, Korashk wrote:
dylancatlow, there is literally no difference between anarcho-capitalism and the notion of user-funded government.

False. The government in my ideal society would protect everyone's rights, not just those financially subscribed to it. Big difference.

There's nothing stopping a private firm from doing that.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:16:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:07:27 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:03:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:01:05 PM, Korashk wrote:
dylancatlow, there is literally no difference between anarcho-capitalism and the notion of user-funded government.

False. The government in my ideal society would protect everyone's rights, not just those financially subscribed to it. Big difference.

There's nothing stopping a private firm from doing that.

There's nothing forcing them to.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:25:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Essentially, I believe in consistency of freedom. Freedoms of one may be chains on another, so one is not free to do whatever he or she wants. This problem of consistency can only be treated with a proper dose of government.